
Glass_ 

Book, £_ 



'* / 



/ 

Y l VQv 



[SENATE DOCUMENT.] 




THE EEPOET 



OF THE 



COMMISSIONERS ON BOUNDARY LINES, 



BETWEEN THE 



STATE OF VIRGINIA, 

O W JO vv<^- Q 



AND THE STATES OF 



MARYLAND, NORTH CAROLINA AND TENNESSEE, 



Bead in the Senate, Jan. 17, 1872. 



r 2 : ~ 
■8?V7 






This report and the documents referred to in it, with the letters accom- 
panying the same, were delivered to the Senate on the 17th of January, 
1872 — and the report now printed was read in secret session. After 
the letters and the report were read they and the documents were referred 
to the Committee on the Library, under an injunction of secresy. On 
the 14th of February the injunction of secresy was removed, and the 
committee was authorized to publish the report, and such of the docu- 
ments as the Commission might think proper to have printed for the use 
of the Senate.— See Journal of the Senate 1871-'72, pp. 153, 259, 
264. 

Under such restrictions the committee refrained from printing any 
of the papers until the receipt of the following note : 

"Richmond, Va., Feb. 26, 1872. 

" To Abel T. Johnson, Esq., Chairman, fyc. : 

" Dear Sir — To prevent all misunderstanding of the wishes of the 
Commissioners on the Boundary between Virginia and Maryland, I am 
authorized to say that whilst they do not desire that the papers re- 
ferred to in this report of Mr. Dejarnette shall be published, it is the 
desire of the Commissioners that the report itself shall be printed. 

" Very respectfully yours, 

" HENRY A. WISE." 

Under the authority above named, and after this expression of the 
wishes of the Commission, the Committee on the Library issue this instal- 
ment of the papers, showing the operations of the Commission on the 
boundary lines between Virginia and the States adjoining her on the 
north and south. Whenever permission is given to publish any of the 
documents obtained by Mr. Dejarnette, they will be printed uniformly 
with this and paged so as to form a continuation of it, and we suggest, 
therefore, inasmuch as a very small edition is printed, that those 
who desire to have the whole bound in a volume, will find it advisable 
to preserve this for that purpose. 



'Y^rry^.t.^7. 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, 

EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS, 

Richmond, January 10th, 1872. 

To the General Assembly : 

I have the honor to transmit herewith the report of the Commis- 
sioners appointed by authority of the Joint Resolution, approved June 
27th, 1870, and continued under the Act approved February 4th, 
1871, to ascertain, and in conjunction with the Commissioners of the 
State of Maryland, to establish the boundary line between the States 
of Virginia and Maryland. This report contains a full statement of 
the labors of the Commissioners, and the results attained, together 
with their views upon the future action necessary to be taken in the 
premises, in which I fully concur. Since the date of the report, I 
have been informed that a joint meeting of the Commissioners of the 
two States has been agreed upon, to be held during the present month, 
a report of which, and the conclusions, if any, reached by the Joint 
Commission, or by our Commissioners, I hope to be able to lay before 
you during your present session, in time for such action as you may 
deem proper. I also transmit herewith, sealed , the report of the 
Special Commissioner, appointed to procure from the English archives 
such documentary evidence as was deemed by the Commissioners ab- 
solutely essential to the maintenance of the claims and rights of Vir- 
ginia. This report is very full, and discloses information of the 
highest importance , which it may not be deemed advisable to publish 
at this time , and I respectfully suggest that it be first read, and the 
propriety of its publication considered and determined in secret 
session. 



The maps, documents, &c, &c., referred to, are, for greater security, 
deposited in the vaults of one of our city banks. 

Copies of the Joint Resolution, above referred to, were transmitted 
to the Governors of North Carolina and Tennessee, but no response 
whatever has ever been received. 

Copies of my letters of transmissal are herewith enclosed. I have 
recently caused copies of the Act of February 4th, 1871, to be trans- 
mitted to the Governors of said States, in the hope of eliciting favora- 
ble action from the present Executives and Legislatures of those 

States. 

G. C. WALKER. 



COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, 

EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS, 

Richmond, December 2. 1870. 

His Excellency W. W. Holden, 

Governor of North Carolina, Raleigh : 

Sir — I have the honor to invite the attention of your Excellency to 
the enclosed copy of a Joint Resolution of the Legislature of Vir- 
ginia, proposing a plan for ascertaining and determining the true 
boundary line between the States of North Carolina and Virginia, and 
to request your concurrence and co-operation in the object designed to 
be accomplished by it. 

It is true that the very friendly relations that have always existed 
between the people of these States, and the courtesy, forbearance, and 
justice that have characterized their intercourse and dealings, have 
made the exact and legal definition of the line of jurisdiction that 
divides them a matter of less consequence than under other circum- 
stances it would have been, but reasons nevertheless, will readily 
occur to your Excellency of sufficient moment to bring your mind to 
the conclusion that this long neglected duty should be no longer 
deferred. 

Counting confidently on your approval of the proposition of the 
Virginia Legislature, and requesting to be informed of any action 
taken by yourself, or the Legislature of your State in furtherance of 
the same, I am 

Very respectfully, 

Your obd't serv't, 
(Signed,) G. C. WALKER, 

Governor of Va. 



^FJSr 



r c e. 



COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, 

EXECUTIVE CH LMBES 

Richmond, December 2, 1870. 

His Excellency De Witt C. Senter, 

Governor of Tennessee, Nashville : 

Sir — I have the honor of inviting your Excellency's attention to a 
Joint Resolution, adopted by the General Assembly of Virginia, 
approved June 27th, 1870, (a copy of which is herewith enclosed,) 
proposing the appointment of Commissioners, with a competent corps 
of surveyors, to ascertain and locate the true boundary lines between 
the State of Virginia and the States of Maryland, North Carolina 
and Tennessee. 

The cordial unity always existing between the good people of Ten- 
nessee and of Virginia, and the courtesy and high sense of justice that 
have characterized the intercourse between the authorities of the two 
Commonwealths, respectively, render the precise and legal definition 
of the boundaries of jurisdiction to each belonging, less important than 
it would be under less pleasant relations. 

Still there are reasons, doubtless obvious to your Excellency, for 
early attention to this important matter ; and I therefore solicit your 
concurrence and co-operation in the action of the General Assembly 
of Virginia, and request to be informed of any action which may be 
taken by yourself, or the Legislature of your State, in furtherance 
thereof. 

With sentiments of great respect, I have the honor to be. 

Very truly, 

Your obd't scrv't, 
(Signed,) G. C. WALKER, 
^ Governor of Va. 



Richmond, Va., December 1st, 1871. 

To his Excellency, Gilbert C. Walke-r, 

Governor of Virginia : 

Sir — In pursuance of your appointment of the undersigned as Com- 
missioners on the part of this State, to meet and confer with Commis- 
sioners on the part of the State of Maryland, to settle and adjust the 
boundaries determinous to the two States, they have promptly and 
diligently proceeded to the discharge of their duties, and now submit 
a partial report. 

After ascertaining the names and residences of the gentlemen ap- 
pointed on the part of Maryland, the Hon. Isaac D. Jones, William J. 
Aydelotte, and Levin L. Waters, Esquires ; the first residing in the 
city of Baltimore, and the other two on the eastern shore of Mary- 
land, the undersigned met and conferred as to the best time and place 
of holding a meeting of the Joint-Commission. At once they found 
that they were not prepared for a Joint-Conference. The very valua- 
ble and indispensable report last made by the previous Commissioner, 
Angus W. McDonald, Esq., could not be found, and of the nine 
volumes of manuscript vouchers of his report, consisting of archives 
procured in England at considerable cost and trouble, but four re- 
mained, and they are much mutilated ; and all his copies of maps 
were missing. The leaves have been cut ou t, and in such a manner 
as to show evident design of destroying important evidence upon the 
question of boundary. The undersigned could not prudently proceed 
without that evidence. If they met the Maryland Commissioners, 
they would be without the vouchers of title ; and the absence of proof 
would probably tend to cause a disagreement. If there should be an 
agreement, a permanent line would have to be run ; and, if not, ex- 
perimental lines, one or more, would be required to show the exact 
difference between the conflicting claims ; and to run any line would 
have necessarily to be postponed until the season of spring. 

In this state of the case, the undersigned requested your Excellency 
to ask for an appropriation to send a messenger to England, with a 
vieAV to supply the lost files of the McDonald report, which was 



8 

granted ; and Mr. Dejarnette was sent, under instructions of which 
you arc fully info med. 

In the meantime the other two Commissioners have been assiduously 
employed in obtaining materials for the Commission, at home. They 
have succeded in finding newly developed and important information 
from the records of counties, from the land office, from private papers 
and from a close examination of the ancient statutes, and the best his- 
tories of the State. 

By the time Mr. Dejarnette returned from England, much 
material was procured here. He was detained longer than he expected, 
but returned in good time for a meeting of the Joint-Commission in 
the fall, and his report is before you. It shows that his mission was 
not in vain, and that whilst he was not allowed to replace all the papers 
lost in the McDonald report, yet he obtained many of them, and 
some of great importance, which the McDonald report did not em- 
brace. 

Two of the undersigned, being from the upper country, preferred not 
to go upon the work before frost set in ; and accordingly, after the 
return of Mr. Dejarnette, proposed to meet the Commissioners of 
Maryland in the month of October last. Unfortunately but one of 
them was able to make an appointment in the early part of that month, 
and the other two could not, owing to their engagements, make an ap- 
pointment earlier than some time in November. But, for special rea- 
sons, the undersigned determined to assemble at Crisfield, on the eastern 
shore of Mainland, where two of the Commissioners reside, in the 
month of October, and they gave notice thereof to Messrs. Jones, 
Waters and Aydelotte. The latter alone met the undersigned at the 
time and place appointed. 

This visit to Crisfield was important and not fruitless. Valuable 
statistics and local information were obtained, showing the importance 
of the boundary line on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake, and the 
localities of two monuments were found and identified, not only west 
of the Pocomoke river, but west of Watkins' Point, at Smith's Island, 
on the Chesapeake Bay and Tangier Sound. 

Two of these monuments -were visited by one Commissioner from 
Maryland, and one from Virginia, and the locality of another ascer- 
tained. Directions were given to have all three marked for the future. 



9 

All that the undersigned could do, then, was to confer upon a re- 
port, and to await any further action on the part of the Commissioners 
of Maryland. Since, these Commissioners have requested a meeting 
of the Joint-Commission at Baltimore, in December, but at so early a 
day that the Virginia Commissioners coul I not be notified in time, and 
a further correspondence as to an appointment is now pending. But 
it is proper to observe, that, though the Joint-Commission may meet 
and confer, they cannot do any field work, or run any line experimen- 
tal, or permanent, before as late as the month of May next. Several 
causes prevent the running of a line during either the winter or sum- 
mer months. The line passes over large sheets of water on the bay 
and sea coasts, and requires calm and clear weather in which to run 
it — and it passes also over large bodies of both salt marsh and fresh 
water swamps, most accessible in the spring or fall, when they are free 
of mosquitoes and frondage, and when working parties may penetrate 
them with least danger to health, and can accomplish their work with 
most exactness and dispatch. 

Two lines are essential to be run — first, the exact parallel of 38° 
N latitude ; and second, the line run by Scarborough and Calvert, A. D. 
1668, on which are numerous monuments. Accompanying this report 
is a copy of a letter from Mr. Cutts, Ass't Supt. of the Coast Sur- 
vey, showing the probable expenses. 

The whole, or nearly all of the appropriation made by the last 
General Assembly, ($5,000,) has been expended by the necessary 
drafts made upon it by the Commissioners during the year. 

The mission to England cost one-half of that amount. And the 
advances required, individually, by the Commissioners have consumed 
the balance. The undersigned cannot but urge the great importance 
of this settlement of boundary between Maryland and Virginia — em- 
bracing as it does riparian rights for the whole length of the Potomac 
river, and the oyster fisheries for a large portion of the Chesapeake 
Bay, included in the Tangier and Pocomoke Sounds, and their estu- 
aries, creeks and bays ; and liberal appropriations should be made to 
obtain the best researches and information, the most exact surveys, and 
the most durable monuments. 

Appropriation for the expense of permanent monuments may well 
be postponed until a settlement is agreed upon by the Joint-Commis- 



10 

mission, and approved by the respective Legislatures of the two 
States but Virginia should not neglect her interests in preserving 
> whatever ancient marks and monuments remain, until a settlement is 
obtained. The estimate of Mr. Cutts is for surveys and monuments 
only. Other expenses will require as much more, say in all $10,000. 
The undersigned confine themselves, for the present, to this partial 
report — not entering, for obvious reasons, upon the question of the 
true line. They concur in their views, and are confident in their con- 
victions upon the question ; and have in their possession and in their 
reach such materials and data as will assuredly fortify the title of A ir- 
ginia to her ancient bounds, but they submit that it is not now pruden t 
to present the history and the proofs of that title or its locatioi . 
All which is respectfully reported for your consideration, and that 

of the General Assembly. 

HENRY A. WISE, 

D. C. DEJARNETTE, 

WM. WATTS, 

Commissioners. 



11 

Washington City, D. C, 

December 13, 1871. &U 



Hon. H. A. Wise, &c. : 



Dear Sir — Your prompt reply to my enquiry of 8th, was duly re- 
ceived, for which accept my thanks. The charts of the Chesapeake 
Bay will be forwarded by next mail. Please return the report made 
by the Maryland Commissioner in 1860, which you now have, and I 
will send such additional copies as I may be able to obtain. There are 
none at the Coast Survey office. The report of Col. McDonald is here- 
with returned. 

The accompanying estimate is based on the supposition that the 
maps of Lieut. Michler, seventeen in number, can be made available 
as part of the record, but to what extent, must depend upon the action 
and decision of the Commission. 

It is believed, however, that the sum named will be sufficient for 
every possible contingency. The whole amount appropriated by Ma- 
ryland for the last Commission, was about $16,000. How much by 
Virginia, I do not know. It should be added, however, that a part of 
this appropriation was devoted to the surveys, and the marking of the 
western boundary of Maryland. 

The Coast Survey will pay the salaries of the surveyors, provide 
the instruments, &c, and also the tents, &c, should any be required. 
I am, very respectfully, 

Your obd't serv't, 

RICH'D D. CUTTS. 



Estimate. 
Estimate of the expenses to be incurred in surveys, preparatory to 
the final establishment of the boundary line between Virginia and 
Maryland, on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay— in opening 
such portions of the line as the survey and marking may require ; in 
the purchase and erection of suitable monuments ; and in drawing 
such additional maps, including a descriptive memoir of the position 
of each monument, as may be deemed necessary for the future security 
and identification of the line, $5,000. f ^ 






12 



Richmond, November 18th, 1871. 

To his Excellency G. C. Walker, 

Governor of Virginia : C *J 

Sir — Under an Act passed by the General Assembly of this State, 
on the 4th of February, 1871, authorizing and requesting the Gover- 
nor, if he should deem it expedient, to send to England an agent, 
charged with the duty of restoring the mutilated records obtained 
thence, by Angus McDonald, in 1860, and all other records, and docu- 
mentary evidence, tending to ascertain and establish the true lines of 
boundary between Virginia and the States of North Carolina, Ten- 
nessee and Maryland, your Excellency was pleased, on the recom- 
mendation of my associates on the boundary commission, (General 
Henry A. Wise and Col. William Watts,) to commission me as such 
agent, and by your instructions of March 30th, 1871, to indicate the 
service I was expected to perform. 

I beg leave now to report to your Excellency the result of my 
mission. 

To expedite the removal of the rigid forms, by which access to 
British archives is guarded, and (which so much embarrassed my pre- 
decessor, Mr. McDonald,) I obtained from the Secretary of State of 
the United States, the sanction of the official seal of the Government, 
and also that of the British Legation at Washington, and was also 
favored by Sir Edward Thornton, Her Majesty's Minister, resident 
at Washington, with a letter to Mr. Hammond, the Under Secretary 
of State at London. 

I sailed from New York on the loth of April, and landed in Liver- 
pool the 28th of the same month, and, by rail, reached London the 
same day. 

I called at the American Embassy the following day, and from Mr. 
Moran, in charge of the Legation, received the assurance of his 
official support, and the promise of an early interview with Mr. 
Hammond. 

Accordingly, a few days thereafter, I was presented to Mr. Ham- 
mond, and received from him authority to enter the British Museum 
as a reader, with the privilege of taking copies of any books I desired, 
and also of taking for my assistants such clerks as I might deem 
necessary. 

But when I asked permission to examine the Rolls Office and State 
Paper Office, with the same privilege of taking copies, it was refused. 

The reasons for refusal, as alleged, were, that those departments 
contained all of the official papers of the Government ; that those 
papers were not arranged under the heads of the several Colonies, but 
were mixed promiscuously with those of the British Government, and 
were arranged only as to dates ; and, also, because the State Paper 



13 

Office had been discontinued, by order, in 1863, and all of the papers 
transferred to the Rolls Office, and were not yet arranged even as to 
dates. 

The difficulties which my predecessor, Mr. McDonald, had previously 
encountered, prepared me to expect a refusal. From Mr. Hammond, 
however, I obtained a promise of an early interview with Lord Gran- 
ville, Secretary of State, with the assurance that the rules should be 
a3 much relaxed, in my behalf, as was consistent with the require- 
ments of British laws. 

It was not then till the 11th of May, that I received from Lord 
Granville the authority asked for, and even then, was prohibited from 
examining records of later date than the reign of Queen Anne. 

1606 being; the date of the first charter of the Colony of Virginia, 
I commenced my investigations with the records of that date. For 
ready references, I have arranged in chapters the documents, as they 
were found and copied ; corresponding to the numbers, as they occur 
in the index, herewith transmitted. 

Chapter 1st contains the original grant to Sir Thomas Gates, Sir 
George Summers and others, of Virginia, between 34 and 35 degrees, 
dated April 10th, 1606. 

Chapter 2d contains the' amended charter of Virginia, granted to 
Robert, Earl of Salisberry and others, the recapitulations of whose 
names occupies 28 pages, dated May 23d, 1609. 

Chapter 3d contains extract of the grant to Earl of Salisberry and 
others, confirming all their former privileges, &c, dated March 12th, 
1612. 

Chapter 7th contains an order of the Privy Council, in regard to 
the new charter of Virginia, dated October 8th, 1623. 

Chapter No. 8, reply of the Virginia Company to the King, Octo- 
ber 15th, 1623. 

Chapter No. 9, proposals of Virginia Company to surrender their 
charter, October 20th, 1623. 

Chapter No. 11, the King to Sir John Harvey, Governor of Vir- 
ginia, renewing their grants to lands, and privileges formerly granted, 
and declares his pleasure in sundry other things touching the Govern- 
ment there, September 12, 1628. 

Chapter 12th, memorial of Lord Baltimore to Secretary Dorchester, 
prays for a grant of a portion of land in Virginia — the King having 
given him leave to choose a part, December, 1628. 

Chapter No. 13, Lord Baltimore to the King, protestations of ser- 
vices, &c, desires a grant of a precinct of land in Virginia, to which 
he w T ishes to remove with some forty persons, with such privileges as 
King James granted to him in Newfoundland, dated August 19, 1629. 

Chapter No. 14, the King to Lord Baltimore, in answer to the 
above, dated November 22d, 1629. 

Chapter 15th, Governor Pott and others to the Council, respecting 
Lord Baltimore's arrival in Virginia, and his desire to remain there. 



]-; 

Being of the Romish Church, refuses to take the oath of supremacy, 
November 30th, 1629. 

Chapter 16, petition of Edwin Rosingham to the Council. The 
King takes the government of Virginia in his own hands, July 11th, 
162U, &c. 

Chapter 17th, articles of agreement between Lord Berkely and Wil- 
liam Boswell and others, for the settlement of Carolina, in 34, 35 and 
36 degrees north latitude, dated May 15, 1630. 

Chapter 20th, patent to Cecil, (Lord Baltimore,) containing a grant 
of province of Maryland, communicated to Mr. Beak from Lord Bal- 
timore, dated June 20th, 1632. This purports to be the original, 
found in the Rolls Office, enrolled on parchment, and engrossed in the 
Latin language. This copy was taken by the keeper of the Rolls, and 
bears his official seal. To verify this (a most important paper,) I em- 
ployed Thomas Edlync Tomlins, (attorney at law, and record solicitor 
of Lincoln's Inn Fields, London,) to copy and translate so much of 
this Latin charter, found in the Rolls Office, as describes the bounds 
of the territory thereby granted. This copy, also, will be found under 
the head of this chapter. 

Chapter 21st, another copy of the same patent, certified by Henry 
Brooke, clerk of the Rolls Chapel. " This and the preceding charter 
differ in this respect, that in the present copy the contracted words are 
not extended in the preceding copy — they have been written in ex- 
tenso, from the original, in possession of Lord Baltimore." 

Chapter 22d, another copy, (printed,) taken from a volume, entitled 
a " Relation of Maryland." 

Chapter 23d, another copy, taken from a printed volume, entitled 
The Acts of Assembly, printed by John Basket. 

Chapter 24th, still another copy, taken from a printed volume, 
called the Laws of Maryland. 

Chapter 25th, consideration of objections to Lord Baltimore's 
patent, in matters of law, inconvenience and equity, &c, in which 
the King places Watkins' Point on the 38th parallel, dated June, 
1632. 

Chapter 26th, order of Privy Council, upon a petition of the plan- 
ters in Virginia, remonstrating against certain grants of a large por- 
tion of lands within that Colony, and their differences with Lord Bal- 
timore, dated July 3d, 1633. 

I do not deem it necessary in this synopsis, to invite your Excellen- 
cy's attention to the contents of the 144 chapters referred to, by the 
index appended to the documents, obtained by me from the British 
archives. 

I have deemed it necessary, thus far. to invite your Excellency's 
attention to those referred to, (with few omissions) in their regular 
succession, in order that at a glance you might discover the relative 
rights of the two Colonies, at the date of the controversy. 

I was fortunate to reproduce all of the important papers directly 
relating to 'he boundary between Virginia and Maryland, obtained by 



15 

my predecessor, Mr. McDonald, and by the light of his labors and 
researches, was put on the trace of others, which I was so fortunate as 
to obtain, thus enabling Virginia to remove the last doubt, if any re- 
mained, as to Virginia's right to all she claims. 

Inasmuch as the conclusions arrived at by McDonald, sustained by 
the records procured by him from the British archives, and delivered 
by Governor Letcher, together with Mr. McDonald's report, dated 2d 
February, 1861, to the Legislature of Virginia, are deemed conclusive. 
I have only to assure your Excellency, that those documents repro- 
duced will be found with those I have the honor herewith to transmit. 

I will add in this connection, that those papers enable us to locate 
Watkin's Point, (the pivotal point,) on which this boundary contro- 
versy on the eastern shore, turns on the thirty-eighth parallel, by the 
authority of the grantor, (Charles I,) who locates it there himself. 

To locate the true and proper line of boundary from Watkins' 
Point to the Pocomoke, a distance of 14 98 miles, is to solve the 
boundary on the eastern shore, since the line from the Pocomoke 'to 
the sea is well defined by the ancient marks and monuments estab- 
lished by Scarborough and Calvert, in 1668. 

In this view of the case, I am not embarrassed by the compact of 
1785, as that compact only relates to the joint use of the Potomac 
and Bay, and not to the territorial limits. For it is certain that 
neither the Legislature of Virginia nor of Maryland, conferred upon 
the Commissioners the right to adjust territorial bounds. 

Entertaining this view and fully appreciating the difficulties attend- 
ing a satisfactory adjustment of a controversy, existing nearly two and 
a half centuries, I could entertain no hope of success, without appeal- 
ing to the muniments of titles, on which each State relied, and by which 
alone this controversy can be adjusted. They existed mostly in Eng- 
land, and had to be dug from a mountain of colonial records with care 
and labor. 

I have referred your Excellency to the first charter granted hy 
James I., dated 10th April, 1606, to the London Company for Vir- 
ginia, embracing all the country between 34 and 45 degrees N . lati- 
tude. Then to the amended charters dated 23d May, 1609, and also 
to another amendment of the same charter, of date 12th March, 1616. 
In neither of these amendments are the territorial limits of Virginia, 
as embraced in the first charter altered, except as to the islands. The 
territory embraced in Lord Baltimore's charter for Maryland, dated 
20th June, 1632, was carved (in the exercise of a royal prerogative,) 
from the territory embraced in the boundary calls of the Colony of 
Virginia. 

With this stipulation from Charles I., [herewith transmitted,) that 
he was prohibited from embracing any part of Virginia in his limits 
inhabited by others than Indians. 

In this connection, I invite your Excellency's attention to chapter 
49, which is a report of commissioners of plantations, showing that 
not only the Virginia Colony had settled the country north of the Po- 



1G 

tomack, but at the date of Lord Baltimore's charter, a member of the 
House of Burgesses lived north of that river. 

T refer to this, not to assail the validity of Lord Baltimore's grant, 
but to snow the origin of this controversy, which has been from that 
time to the present, existing in regard to this boundary. 

( hapter 26th contains an order of the Privy Council, on the petition 
of the planters in Virginia, remonstrating againsl certain grants of a 
large portion of lands within that Colony, ami their differences with 
Lord Baltimore, dated 23d July, li> : !-'i 

Then follows a letter from Charles I. to Lord Baltimore, charging 
him with having deceived him, in representing that he embraced in his 
boundary calls, no country occupied by the Virginia settlers. This is 
not so, says the King — for in truth a part was already occupied by the 
Virginia Colonists. 

Lord Baltimore's charter embraces also the State of Delaware — but 
Charles II., when it was shown him, that at the date of Lord Balti- 
more's charter, that that territory was occupied by the Dutch, and in- 
formed Lord Baltimore that it did not pass to him. though embraced 
in his boundary calls, because it was at the date of his charter, occu- 
pied by others than Indians and the King — accordingly sold it to Wm. 
Penn. 
1(1 Charles I., secretly a Roman Catholic, controlled in a great degree 
"* by Lord Baltimore and his brother-in-law, (Feasley, who was Secre- 
tary to the King,) was made to believe by those two zealous Catholics, 

In Chapter 56, (with its inclosures,) will be found a petition; and 
that, they could establish the Roman Church in the Colonies, and thus 
Lord Baltimore ta as allowed to hold that part of Virginia, 
amongst other matters prayed for, is a grant of land, between the 
rivers Potomac and Rappahannock, "by reasons of a Ro} r al promise 
formerly ma ic the Virginia Company" — date, July 28th, L639. 

Mr. McDonald, in his report, to which 1 have referred, thus alludes 
to Ibis grant. The grant of Northern Neck, by Charles II., to 
Ralph, Lord Ilopton, Henry, Earl of St. Albans, Lord Culpeper and 
others, in the first year of that King's reign, included the rivers Po- 
tomac and Rappahannock, and all the islands within their banks 

" This grant." says Mr. McDonald, " will be found referred to in 
the first vol., Revised Code, page 43, chapter 89 ; it is also referred 
to in a letter from Charles II., of date March 30th, 1603 — copied in 
volume 4th, page 261, and therein mentioned as having been made in 
the first year of the King's reign; the commencement of which he 
was accustomed to date from the date of his father's death on the 
scaffold." 

In this letter he describes said grant as embracing all the land lying 
between the rivers Potomac and Rappahannock, and the Chesapeake 
Bay, together with the rivers themselves, and all the islands within 
their banks. 

This grant and all its amendments and its transfer to Va., I 



17 

was so fortunate as to find, and beg leave to invite your Excellency's 
careful attention to what follows : 

That Virginia should have erected forts, established ports of entry, 
created ferries, and to this day appoints Pilots on the Potomac river, 
without exciting remonstrance from the Legislatu e of Maryland, 
furnish the strongest presumption, that she had abandoned all claim to 
any portion of that river, and can be explained only by the light 
thrown on this subject by the Fairfax grant, which places that river 
wholly within the limits of Virginia. Thus the mystery of Mary- 
land's acquiescence is explained. 

CHAPTER 80TH 

Contains a copy of an original letter from King Charles II., to the 
Governor and Council of Virginia, commanding them to give every 
encouragement to the planters and setlers, &c, with enclosure ; and 
also a petition of Henry, Earl of St. Albans, John Lord Berkely, 
Sir Wm. Moncton, and John Fethurg, Sir Cobden, assignees of the 
late Lord Hopton, to the King, in 1649 ; the King granted, by letters 
pattent to them, all that territory bounded by the rivers Potomac and 
Rappahannock, the courses of those rivers to Chesapeake bay. After the 
restoration, their agent. Sir Humphrey Hook, was molested by the Gov- 
ernor of Virginia, which fact being brought before the King in Council, 
they, Lords Culpeper, Fairfax and others, surrendered some of their 
privileges, and ou the 8th of May, 1605, a new pattent, with the con- 
sent of Mr. Morrison, the Governor's agent, was granted to them, 
dated April, 1665. 

Chapter 86th contains a copy of an original grant of charter by 
Charles II., to Henry, Earl of St. Albans, and others, together with 
a copy of amended grant, dated May 8th, 1667, at Westminster. 
The original is here said to have been granted under the Great Seal 
at St. Germain's, December 8th, 1651 : it embraces the rivers Potomac 
and Rappahannock, and the land between those rivers, and the islands 
within their banks. 

The terms of the grant require that it should be held under the 
jurisdiction of the Colony of Virginia, dated 8th of May, 1667 It 
was by virtue of this grant, that to Virginia was restored the jurisdic- 
tion of the Potomac, which was exercised by the Assembly, on the 
23d of September, the same year, 1667. Chapter 89 contains Acts 
of Assembly at James City, establishing forts on the James, York, 
Potomac and Rappahannock rivers, 23d of September, 1667. 

Chapter 92. Petition to the King, for permission to buy Lord 
Culpeper' s grant, and remonstrating against similar grants for the 
future. Dated Feb. 28th, 1674. 

Chapter 93. Copy of the report of the Attorney and Solicitor Gen- 
eral in the report of the case of a charter for Virginia &c. Dated Octo 
berl 4th, 1675. 



18 



CHAPTER 94. 

Order of Council upon a report touching a grant to be passed to his 
Majestie's subjects, in Virginia. Dated November 19th, 1675. 

CHAPTER 136. 

Copy of an Act appointing ports, &c, for preventing frauds upon 
the customs in Virginia. Under this Act ports were established on 
the Potomac. December 7th, 1685. 

By this evidence ihe last doubt is removed, as regards the Northern 
boundary of Virginia. 

The last grant of that section was to the Earl of St. Albans, Lord 
Culpeper, Lord Fairfax and others, calling, not only for the Potomac 
river as their boundary, but in express words, embracing that river 
and the islands within its banks. 

This grant was acquired by Virginia, and by order of Council, 
restored to her the 9th of November, 1675 But from the date of the 
grant, May, 1667, to Lords Culpeper, Fairfax and others, (her citizens) 
she, Virginia, claimed and exercised undisputed control of the river 
Potomac. 

Her first Act exercising jurisdiction, was dated 23d September, 
1667, in erecting forts on the Potomac. It was not until October, 
1673, that the attention of the Colonial Legislature was directed to 
the subject of establishing ferries, and the first and only steps then 
taken, were to provide for the appointment of Commissioners, to fix 
upon suitable points at wdiich to establish free ferries, who were to re- 
port to the next Assembly. 2d Hen., S. at L., page 310. 

But no ferries were established until 1702, when many were es- 
tablished on the James, York and Rappahannock, and one on the Po- 
tomac : " From Col. Wm. Fitzhugh's Landing, in Potomac river, 
over to Maryland." 

It will be borne in mind, that up to the ratification of the compact 
of 1785, as many as twenty-eight ferries were established by Acts of 
the Legislature of Virginia, over the Potomac to Maryland. 

When, may I inquire, in view of this history, did Virginia lose the 
limits of the Fairfax grant ? Not by the compact of 1785, because 
that compact had no reference to territorial bounds. 

The Fairfax stone, situated at the head springs of the North Branch 
of the Potomac river, is admitted by Maryland to be the Southern 
extremity of her Western line, and also the Western extremity 
of her Southern line. It, in fact, is her Southwestern corner, and 
from that punctual spot, her line follows the North Bank of the Poto- 
mac river to the Bay, and thence to Watkins' Point. 

Does Maryland recognize the Fairfax stone as the corner established 
by the boundary calls of her original charter ? Certainly not, as is 
indisputably shown by the history of that stone. 

Let me refer your Excellency to Lord Baltimore's answers to ques- 



19 

tions propounded by the Lords, Commissioners, &c, dated 10th April, 
1676. 

In chapter 96th will be found those questions, and Lord Balti- 
more's answers. In answering the tenth question, Lord Baltimore 
sa , r s : " the boundaries, longitudes and latitudes of the Province of 
Maryland are well described and set forth in the chart or map of this 
province, lately made and prepared by one Augustine Herman, an in- 
habitant of said province, and printed and publicly sold in London by 
his Majestie's license, to which I humbly refer for greater certainty, 
&c." "For this map," says Mr. McDonald, "I made myself and caused 
others to make, great search, in every known depository in London, 
but could find no map authenticated as Herman's." 

This map I found, not in the map department of the British Mu- 
seum, where all maps are supposed to be deposited, but in the Green- 
ville Library, created and sustained by donations of private libraries, 
and a depository of the papers of extinct families. 

By permission of one of the Trustees of this Institution, I was 
kindly permitted to examine the books, but not the papers, deposited 
there. This map I had photo-lithographed, and is marked A. in the 
maps herewith transmitted. It dots Lord Baltimore's Southwestern 
boundary on the south bank of the Poto:nac to Acquia Creek, and 
thence up said creek along its southern bank as far as said creek is 
shown on said map. It places Watkins' Point also on 38th parallel. 
This map "was made by Augustine Herman, a personal friend and 
dependent of Lord Baltimore's, who lived at the line in Maryland, and 
at whose house Lord Baltimore spent most of his time while in the 
Colony ; and he was present with Lord Baltimore and Wm. Penn at 
their first Conference about the grant and boundary of Delaware and 
Pennsylvania coterminous with Maryland, as is shown by the accom- 
panying papers herewith filed marked X. It bears Lord Baltimore's 
coat of arms, and is the matrix from which has sprung all the difficul- 
ties in adjusting the territorial limits of the two States. 

In Ogilby's America, will be found an exact copy of this map of 
Herman's, and all authors whose maps show the Southern line of 
Maryland dotted on the South bank of the Potomac, were misled by 
Ogilby, who copied without alteration from Herman. 

This map, in the language of Lord Baltimore, well describes and 
sets forth the boundaries, latitudes and longitudes of his province. 
Does Herman, in running this Western line of Maryland in its course 
South, stop at the Fairfax stone? certainly not ; but passes over that 
spot fifty miles directly South, to what was supposed to be the Poto- 
mac, but really the head of Acquia Creek. 

By what authority, then, was this line established, by Lord Balti- 
more, through his agent, Augustine Herman, altered ? As he claimed 
that that map embraced, only what was called for. by his original 
charter. 

It could have been done only by Royal authority, which was exercised 
by Charles II., when in exile. 

Among his first official acts, he restored to Virginia her rightful 



20 

bounds, of which she had been deprived by bis father, to promote the 
interest of the Catholic Church, which it was known he secretly favored. 
To give full force and effect to this grant, soon after his restoration he 
confirmed it, and describes the territory thereby granted, " as being 
all that country lying between the rivers Potomac and Rappahannock, 
together with the rivers themselves, and the islands within their 
banks." 

It was then by authority of this grant, that Maryland was forced to 
agree to the establishing of the Fairfax stone, located in 174"), as her 
limit South, on her Western line. The name of this stone, then, re- 
veals its history ; and Maryland, by recognizing it, admits the validity 
of ..he Fairfax grant. 

From this stone then, to the Chesapeake, there is no escape for her 
from following the calls of the Fairfax grant, which gives the Potomac 
river and the islands within its banks to Virginia. 

This conclusion is justified and rendered irresistible by the maps B., 
C. and D., obtained from the British Museum, and herewith trans- 
mitted. 

These maps dot the Northern line of Virginia, on the North bank 
of the Potomac, from the Fairfax stone, to where it empties into the 
Chesapeake Bay, at Point Lookout. We are then at Point Lookout 
by virtue of that authority, which commanded obedience from Mary- 
land, and from which there is no escape. 

On the Eastern shore we are placed at Watkins' Point, on the 38th 
parallel by Charles I.; on the Western shore of the Chesapeake, we are 
placed by Charles II., as I have shown, by authorities, not to be con- 
troverted at Point Lookout. The closing line, therefore, can be easily 
run between these two points. 

Mr. McDonald, after his return from England, arrived at the same 
point sustained by the records, which he obtained there, with great labor. 
He shows that the claim of Maryland to the South bank of the Poto- 
mac, sprung from a mistranslation of her original charter. 

Let me again invite your Excellency's attention to the admirable 
report of Mr. McDonald. 

Mr. McDonald, in referring to the discrepancies between the differ- 
ent copies of the original charter, given Lord Baltimore, says: "It 
will be seen, by comparing the two, that the Latin text as given by 
Bacon, is ft plain and gross departure from the original, as found re- 
corded both in the Rolls Office and the State Paper Office. 

"And but for the gross and patent violations of both the letter and 
spirit of the original grant, no reasonable doubt would ever have ex- 
isted — that the whole Potomac river, from its source, (wherever fixed 
and whenever ascertained,) to its mouth, was wholly without the limits 
of Maryland, and within the limits of Virginia." 

lie says : "I have caused to be translated, by Thomas Edlyn Tom- 
lins, attorney at law and record solicitor, of Lincoln's Inn Field, Lon- 
don, so much of the Latin charter as the same is found recorded in the 
Rolls Office, as describes the bounds of the territory thereby granted ; 
which translation cannot be so into prcted as to permit the Maryland 



21 

boundary along the banks of the river Potomac to be on the Virginia 
shore — and more, it establishes, beyond all plausible cavil, Point Look- 
out as the point from which the closing line of the descriptive calls, is 
to be drawn over the bay to the headland, called in the charter, Wat- 
kins' Point, and mentioned as the beginning point on the Eastern 
Shore." 

The evidence on which Mr. McDonald based his conclusions, as well 
as that which sustains me in the conviction that Point Lookout is the 
extreme southern pointonthe Chesapeake, to which Maryland can justly 
claim on the western shore, I. have the honor to submit to your Ex- 
cellency, together with this report. 

In the British Museum I found a book styled, "A Relation of Ma- 
ryland," which throws much light on this controversy; and also an- 
other, in the Greenville Library, styled, "Lord Baltimore's case, &c." 
See chapter 143 These books purport to have been written by an in- 
habitant of Maryland. These I had copied, and they will prove to be 
of interest and value, and will be found under the heads indicated in 
the index. 

By your instructions, I was likewise directed to obtain such evi- 
dence as the British archives contained, relating to the boundarv be- 
tween Virginia and North Carolina, and Virginia and Tennessee. 

In this regard, I invite your Excellency's attention to chapter 78. 
which is the charter of the Earl of Clarendon and others, for Carolina, 
dated March 14th, 1663. 

In chapter 82 will be found the amended charter to the Earl Claren- 
don, enlarging the terms of his former patent, dated June 30th, 1665. 

I also obtained maps Avhich correspond to the boundary calls of the 
charter, which will remove all difficulties, should any occur, in adjust- 
ing the boundary of Virginia with those States. 

There are many chapters and maps embraced in this report not re- 
ferred to, because it has already grown far beyond its intended limits; 
they cannot fail to interest the reader, by revealing the history of this 
controversy. 

The maps are the fac similies of the originals, photo-lithographed, 
the most expensive, but only mode by which fac similies can be pro- 
duced. The usual process is by tracing on linen, when it is impossible 
for inaccuracies, not to occur. From those obtained by me, all doubt 
is removed as to the fidelity of the copy. 

Under the regulations of the British Museum, two maps copied from 
each original, are to be given to the Map Department of that Institu- 
tion. This was accordingly done by me. 

By this process of photo-lithography, when the impression is trans- 
ferred to stone, copies are reproduced at very slight expense. I 
therefore brought with me six copies of each of the maps obtained 
from the Map Department of the British Museum, all of which accom- 
pany this report. 

From the Museum there was comparatively little labor in obtaining 
such copies as I desired. There books and maps are alone kept, and 
by- admirable system, imde accessible. Not so, however, in the 



22 

Rolls Office — here nothing is kept but records, enrolled on parchment 
or loose papers. 

The Colonial papers are not arranged under the heads of their re- 
spective Colonies, hut thrown promiscuously together; and as reports 
were required to be made of all occurrences in each of the many 
Colonies of England, they constitute an immense mass of ill-kept and 
badly written records These I had to e and extraci Buch as 

id to the subject in hand. 

I, of course, had to employ many assi aid me ; ring 

the Maryland and Virginia papers, all of which, when found, I had 
personally to inspect, to see what relation they sustained to this boun- 
dary controversy. 

My progress was tediously slow ; it, not unfrequently being the case, 
that my labor, together with six or eight clerks for days at a time, was 
rewarded with not a single paper of importance. 

At other times a single package of papers would give me employment 
for days, when I would have to dismiss my examining clerks, (whose 
charges ivere from two to four shillings per hour.) To reassemble 
these clerks and report the occurrence, was my employment for sixty- 
one days in the Rolls office. 

Your Excellency will find that all the papers that are herewith sub- 
mitted, are attested by an official of the Rolls Office, as being true 
copies of the originals. 

The amount drawn by me from the Treasurer of the State, on your 
order, on the recommendation of my associates to meet the expenses 
of the mission, was two thousand five hundred dollar. The premium 
paid for gold, thirteen per cent., and eleven per cent, for exchange on 
London, (which I payed in New York,) reduced the amount to one 
thousand nine hundred and forty dollars, current funds in London. 

The amount expended by me, traveling expenses, board, &c, &c, 
including cost of documents and maps, was §1,908, leaving unex- 
pended in my hands, thirty-two dollars, Avhich, since my arrival, has 
been reduced, by $2.25 express freight on two maps, not completed 
when I left London, and to be further reduced by the same sum, as 
two other maps are yet to be received. 

The amount, then, unexpended, is $27.50, which would have been 
greatly increased but formiy being in London during what is known as 
" The Season," when the city is always /m//, and filled then beyond its 
capacity to accommodate, by the Civil War, then raging in France. 
The prices for accommodations at hotels, &c, were increased to two and 
three hundred per cent, above the usual rates for the season, which are 
always greatly advanced above those of the ordinary periods of the 
year. 

All of which is most respectfully submitted to your Excellency, by 
yours respectfully, 

D. C. DeJARNETTE. 

P. S. — The seventy-four maps not called for in the index, accom- 
pany this report. D. C. DeJ. 



